Group items tagged

Situation based on Heinz dilemma: There has been a shoot out at a college and there has been several severe injuries. The closest emergency hospital is full: all the OR are full, the emergency room and they had to convert that room into an OR. All the doctors are working on every patients. There are still several patients that are coming in the ER and there is no room left. The police and the doctors find out that the doctors in OR 1 are performing a heart surgery on the shooter. What should the doctors do? Should they continue or leave him to help other patients? There several patients who need surgeries and that OR could be used to save them. What is the moral thing to do?

Honestly morality is such a vast principle. We all might share the same connotation on what morality is, but at the same time it might differ. This is because we have all belong to different cultural backgrounds and when we make a decision about whether it's morally acceptable/appropriate or inappropriate, those factors influence our decision. As aleks and baqar mentioned, the sense of morality differs within people. In my culture, some people might think love marriages are immoral and go against cultural values. I've inherited the same cultural background and values but my sense of morality has been influenced by other cultures. Therefore, i think love marriages are definitely moral. Like discussed earlier, who really decides what's morally right? Will there ever be a mutual sense of morality? Referring to one of the principles mentioned in the article, Altruism. I could relate it to one of the quotes i strongly believe in. 'As you sow so shall you reap' - stated in the Bible.

The article i decided to reflect on is "What Makes Us Moral" because I interestingly realized that the article made me raise more questions than give me answers, that exactly makes us moral. The article explores two kinds of people, which are basically the bad and the good, and tried to link up morality to the actions of certain people. Sometimes morality plays a big part in a person's life and towards what actions they may commit, but sometimes, a person's badness or goodness, can over shadow universal morality. Examples were given at the bottom of page 30 and 31, which both famous and infamous people who have acted and changed the world, whether it was positively or destructively. In the article, there was a very interesting observation made about an example of a child at school. The example was about how the child would react to him having to obey the rule of not eating in class, and of him listening to his teacher if she told him to push another student off his chair. This shows that morality is part of everyone's school of thought, and then determines the actions one will decided to make. Unless someone decides they want to be bad, and want to hurt other people, morality overshadows any kind of bad though, just like the teacher's request of pushing another child of his chair made made the student hesitate, and realize that he had no valid reason to do that, but his teacher's demand. Most people's intentions are good because we all feel like we have a certain standard to live up to, and a limit of a particular behaviour we owe to each other and the people around us. On the other hand, there are always people who aren't as stable, people who suffer from clinical sanity for example, as stated under the section of "Why We Turn Bad". Where morality comes from is still to be researched and understood, because there was never a rule book or "morality" book made in order to mentor the human society, but that hasn't stopped the vast majority of people having common thou

Required Viewing

I found the ideas presented in Sam Harris' TED talk extremely intriguing and thought-provoking. I was very captivated by his concept of moral-genius in the same fashion as it applies to genius in any other scientific subject area. I found that his ideas accurately applied to the real-world, where people's subjective opinions of morality, fueled by cultural stimulus, interfered with the goal of human well-being. This led me to wonder what the causes of such ideas and actions. I came up with a possible explanation for the phenomenon. Moral questions rely heavily on social aspects which is expected since our sense of morality is shaped by our interactions with our community and ourselves. When we talk of the subject of morality and what we perceive as morally right and morally wrong, we encounter several different distinct, morally correct answers to solve moral problems. There is a certain range of actions that we would distinguish as morally correct. In a scientific-based subject such as physics, as Harris discussed in his presentation, the answers to questions are concrete and precise. This is due to a lack of social interaction in order to achieve an answer, the range of correct answers which is present in moral questions is now eliminated. I believe that this is due to the fact that social interactions are not part of the journey to reach the answer. This allows physicists or people in general to dismiss incorrect answers to questions without hesitation, if an answer is incorrect, a clear demonstration of the faulty logic that caused the deduction of the incorrect answer may be explored. Morality however, may not be explored using the same procedure. People are afraid to point out the faultiness in the deduction of moral answers of other people because they do not want to dismiss the moral beliefs of other people in fear of insulting them by discounting their beliefs. I find this similar to what occurs in a subject such as English. English is also a subject which

I think that what Harris has presented is an interesting point of view, but I think that his viewpoint on moral topics are quite narrow minded, because of the fact if that morals are not determined through scientific concepts. I feel that when he continues to think about these topics he only considers the points of view out of practicality, instead of looking at peoples emotions and the morals that they have based them of off. Personally I believe that morals are based of not only religions, but also the community that people reside in, as often we base what we do on our surroundings, as we don't want to be ostracized by our community. For example, one of the theories Harris offers it to look at the idea of moral leaders just like we have leaders in religion, but I think that what he might fail to understand is that morality, is much more fluid and abstract than basic science, as there are many variables which differ at the same time. I think one of the main problems with having "moral leaders" might be the fact that they will not take the culture into consideration.

I would like to start this response by stating my initial thoughts on the topic of the article and the author himself. When I first looked at it I thought of the fact that I find applied psychology rather hilarious, as I find it not only inconsistent, but also scientifically unjustified and rather subjective. Furthermore, upon reading that the author was a born again Christian, I got the feeling that he was trying to justify religion and try to make it a scientific concept, when I believe it is not. However, I must admit that both of these thoughts, in reflection are logically unsound, as they show the "ad hominem" fallacy. Therefore I will discuss the importance of this article in a more justified way, by approaching the argument itself and not the writer of the argument. I will approach my response from the central question: "To what degree is morality subjective or objective?" First of all, I would like to highlight that the dichotomy between subjectivity-objectivity and empiricism-transcendentalism is that the two are connected on which sources of morals they identify; with subjective-empiricist morals being derived from each individuals' perspectives and objective-transcendentalist morals derived from the idea that morals are universal construct, waiting to be found. I would like to define morals as the rules by which one believes they can lead a just life. Objective morals are defined as morals which disregard the idea of them being constructed by an individual and therefore can be upheld universally, and subjective morals are defined as morals which can only be upheld by an individual. I feel that this article creates a false dichotomy for me, as I do not think that morals are simply ideas which can be followed empirically or transcendentally, but rather that they are ideas which have far more complex origins. As the article looks at societal morals and the way that human interaction encourages certain moral beliefs, I would like to highlight the fact

To start, I do not consider myself a religious person, nor do I consider myself a particularly spiritual one either. I've only lived a few short years and cannot really determine or even express my religious/spiritual beliefs and/or to what extent I am invested in these beliefs. I do know, however, that when I read this article I couldn't help but agree with the basic principles and values of transcendentalism (to my surprise and slight consternation). According to what I knew of transcendentalism (picture Walden-esque scenarios and Thoreau's argument from which unfortunately stems superficial 'appeal to nature' arguments) this 'realization' did not sit well with me. On further reflection and reading of my edition of The Philosophy Book, I think perhaps due to some superficial discussions I've had regarding transcendentalism, I disregarded this belief as having little to no merit. I believe this to be an example of 'the fallacy fallacy' or 'argument from fallacy'. So, to correct my earlier statement, I agree with the philosophical movement of transcendentalism as described by Mr. Edward O. Wilson. At first glance, transcendentalism suggests a universal set of rules and rights that everyone should uphold. This is the idea that I subscribe to, although further exploration into transcendentalism proves to be problematic to me. For example, I do believe that there are universal rights and wrongs, but who determines these rights and wrongs? And who am I to know if my concept of universal rights and wrongs are truly right or wrong? This of course 'muddies the waters', and although we discussed this in class on several occasions I cannot help but continue to be frustrated by this. Wilson continues on to discuss the 'evolution of morality'. I find this both intriguing and problematic. Through studying IB Biology, I've learned that traits and characteristics in any individual are passed down from parent to offspring if the parent is successful enough to survive

(continued from above) to reproduce. This would then apply to early human individuals and morality as individuals who expressed cooperation and 'morality' would survive to pass their genes on. I took this statement to suggest that every human alive today would somehow be a culmination of years of evolutionary biology, producing us as the 'most moral' to date. However, over time civilizations would develop and humanity would move from its hunter-gatherer phase to its agricultural phase. It seems to me that given this drastic change in living conditions, Darwin's 'survival of the fittest' ideology would not apply as much to these people as it would have to Wilson's Paleolithic hunters. This change would provide opportunities for mutations to occur and be passed down, therefore altering our 'biological moral compass'. Not only would this change in living conditions alter social ethical codes but, following in form with Wilson's suggestion of the inheritance of morals, change our biological morals as well. Instead of the 'most moral' surviving, the survivors (and therefore our predecessors) would be the individuals who managed to appear the most moral or hold the most power, regardless of actually being the most moral.

Nearly one thousand students pack Harvard's historic Sanders Theatre to hear Michael Sandel talk about justice, equality, democracy, and citizenship. Now it's your turn to take the same journey in moral reflection that has captivated more than 15,000 students, as Harvard opens its classroom to the world.

I remember form last year Mr. Frederickson asked us the same first two questions and we had to answer what we would do. In the first question I would make the turn and kill one worker instead of five, because I am only killing one person. So by killing one, I was able to save five people's lives though I killed one. So what in this situation is, "less harm = less guilt". The professor should have also ask, what if the one person was a family member. As we talked about the Heinz dilemma last class, now the person is someone you know and obviously you care about. Would I make the turn to kill one of my family member and save the five workers, or actually kill five to save one person? Or what if the one person was a famous person or your idol? Would you still kill him/her to save the five "workers"? I have emphasized on the word "worker" because this may bring a sense of less value. One is famous and the five is "just" workers. In this situation the person is not close to me or does not have a close relationship with me and I do not know him/her other than watching that person on TV. But just because he/she is famous, does that mean he/she is more respected and valued than the five workers? In the second question I would actually do nothing and let five people die, because if I were to push the fat person to save five I am involving myself into the situation that I wouldn't be in if I didn't push the fat person. Although I will be watching five people die when I had the choice to do something, I wouldn't. The original situation always seems to go under the statement of "less harm = less guilt", but the altered versions most likely leads me to do nothing and let the five die, due to the fact that I don't want to harm the innocent and non- involved one and to not involved myself into the situation. Either the pushing or the killing to get the organs, involves me to the situation physically and to take action. By taking action, I feel more guilty and feel

I remember a few years ago, one of my friends who was doing the IB Diploma asked me the trolley car question. It stuck with me for a long time. Last year, Mr Frederickson asked the same question. Now I finally know where this question is from. The first half of the video really made me wonder about why it feels more and more wrong to kill one person instead of five in the examples Sandel gives. I realized that the physical closeness to the person increases the emotional closeness to the person increases as well. You see the person, you can assume things about them from the way he is standing, what the person is doing or his facial expression. I once saw a video that spoke about how we deal with having our own personal space in crowded places like subways. The speaker said that we subconsciously objectify the people around us - they appear to be merely objects that are placed within the walls of our personal space. I would assume that this applies to people that we see on the streets too, except reversed. I believe that this logic also applies in the trolley car example too - the person that's closer seems more real, so it seems more immoral to kill him. For the second part, the question 'what is the moral work of consent?' intrigued me because I used to think that consent would make something acceptable. However, this video got me thinking - what if consent is being given not because the person is actually giving consent, but because they're doing it for some other reason be it the greater good or other personal reasons. This could apply to the shipwreck example (if Parker had given consent), as well as other ones. What if the reason why a person is giving consent for something to happen is so immoral that the action shouldn't be regarded as acceptable anymore? Would this put the people who do the action at fault? Or would it still be okay, would the action be excused because of their obliviousness?

Not Required but relevant to our current study of morality and law . . . .

Good simple documentary on how the world is run.

Probably the greatest example of how easy it was to be sucked into erroneous beliefs.